Author
Topic: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses? (Read 28398 times)

I started out with a 550D and kit lens. Though cheap, I ended up selling after a year or so at about half price. If I could go back and start over again I would buy a FF camera and 24-105. That would have lasted me until now for sure (three years on). If you decide it's not for you, sell it.

More flexibility in low light performance and range both wide and tele with option #1. On the 600d you would have had to find a lens that is 15-65mm to match the same focal length of 24-105mm on 6D. DOF of f/4 on 6D is also compared to f/2.5 on 600D. The boost in ISO performance and overall look of the images is also better with full frame, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money for street shots if I could barely afford it, you should make the bigger purchases if you know your finances can take the hit or if it will be an investment that pays for itself short term. But of course, in the end, you still buy what you want because it's your money.

Certainly FF has advantages of more control of depth of field (DOF) ie by definition of having a larger sensor, a shallower DOF is easier possible - with the same aperture. And FF has the advantage of generally lower noise, so in that regard the 6D would be a good option.

However there is a place for APS-C (eg 600D or 60D) too. Firstly there are many great EF-S lenses, eg the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 which covers 24-135mm in FF format. True, this is a slowish lens. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a faster lens. Though for truly shallow DOF, a dedicated fast prime (eg f/1.2 - f/2) is more suitable.

UWA, there are so many great lens options - from various manufacturers, many of which are sharp corner to corner, contesting the best L UWAs. Eg the Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 8-16mm.

The 7D's AF is great for street photography (19 cross type AF points, well spread across the composition). Most EF-S lenses are less expensive than their FF 'equivalent'. No doubt if money is no barrier, then go for FF- and get a 6D (or even a 5DmkIII or 1DX). But generally people don't choose the 5DmkIII or 1DX because of financial limitations - and needing to keep sufficient funds for decent glass.

Regards

Paul

Logged

I appreciate using my Canon DSLRs along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

But generally people don't choose the 5DmkIII or 1DX because of financial limitations - and needing to keep sufficient funds for decent glass.

Yes. If money is no object, go with FF. But APS-C cameras today are also amazingly good today, and the price differential is substantial. I've been shooting with APS-C for a decade or so (when did 10D appear?), last four years with 7D, only getting my first FF (5D3) this year, and while it is clearly better, I have no regrets about not doing it earlier.

In particular, I like the EF-S 17-55 very much, and given your comments about your budget that's what I'd get, with whichever crop body (550D or newer) you can get cheapest - image quality won't change much (if you shoot raw - jpeg engines are better in newer ones). I'd prefer the 60D because of the top LCD and even more because I'm addicted to the back wheel, but for most people it doesn't matter so much. (The 7D is superior mainly if you shoot fast-moving subjects, like wildlife or sports.)

But what suits me might not suit you. Given a limited budget, with APS-C you can get more lenses (and accessories like tripod and flashes) that will cover wider range of situations, but image quality will not be quite as good as with FF. If you are one of those people who only want perfect pictures rather than wanting at least some kind of picture in wildly varying circumstances, you might be better off starting with FF; especially so if your main game is low light, because that's where FF advantage is biggest.

Hi all! Thank you for all the great advice and suggestions. I've read them all.

I have already invested and started to play in Lightroom. Though only have jpegs in there, I'm getting the hang of it. I will be definitely shooting in RAW, if anything else I wouldn't consider DSLRs.

I am planning to get some basic filters with the camera. I know what they do basically. But I have some reading to do on them as I don't know the details and specifics as of yet. Thanks for the advice on this area, it would give me a good start as to what to look for. I will wait on the tripod and invest in one a bit later. For now, I don't mind using my body or holding my breath while I figure out the camera.

... to quickly see what aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus mode, evaluation, etc, etc. You're at (as well as shots remaining and battery life). I simply wouldn't buy a DSLR without that.

This is also very important to me. I want to take pictures, not fiddle in and around with the camera.

I will look at micro-4/3 as suggested to have an idea of those as well.

Budget is, of course, a concern. 6D is in the top range I want to part with. The more I think about it the more I am leaning to option 1... As many of you mentioned, and I quote "it's better to spend once and totally enjoy it."... Which is how I was feeling and justifying the price tag for a first DSLR.

I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:- body doesn't matter, half-dead Rebel is fine ; (not for me)- get the best lenses you can afford ...; (best doesn't mean the most expensive)- ... which are 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200L, 100-400L; (not really, primes work better for me)- don't forget about accessories: tripods, flashes, filters, etc; (you can buy these later, if you feel the need) (IMHO, only memory cards, bags and spare batteries are the must-have, everything else is optional).Now I know that it does not fit my style. I don't need to cover the 16-600mm focal range. I rarely use tele lenses, flashes, tripods, filters ... no need to spend money on that. I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II and then add 85/1.8USM later (which I recommend for portraits).The problem is that you never know before you try it. My current choice is 6D+40/2.8STM (people, close-ups, stitching landscapes, travel) +150/2.8Macro for portraits and stuff outdoors.

I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:- body doesn't matter, half-dead Rebel is fine ; (not for me)- get the best lenses you can afford ...; (best doesn't mean the most expensive)- ... which are 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200L, 100-400L; (not really, primes work better for me)- don't forget about accessories: tripods, flashes, filters, etc; (you can buy these later, if you feel the need) (IMHO, only memory cards, bags and spare batteries are the must-have, everything else is optional).Now I know that it does not fit my style. I don't need to cover the 16-600mm focal range. I rarely use tele lenses, flashes, tripods, filters ... no need to spend money on that. I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II and then add 85/1.8USM later (which I recommend for portraits).The problem is that you never know before you try it. My current choice is 6D+40/2.8STM (people, close-ups, stitching landscapes, travel) +150/2.8Macro for portraits and stuff outdoors.

+1. Find your style first before buying all that extra stuff. You may find that you use a filter about once a year. Don't buy anything until you find a definite need for it. Try without it. You might find a cheap workaround. For example grad ND - I find lightrooms grad filter way more flexible or take two exposures and blend in photoshop. For ND filter - f/22 does the job (well kind of!). Maybe a CPL is one you will need as thats not possible to replicate digitally. Tripod - my knee, lampost, railing etc. even used someones shoulder once.

I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:- body doesn't matter, half-dead Rebel is fine ; (not for me)- get the best lenses you can afford ...; (best doesn't mean the most expensive)- ... which are 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200L, 100-400L; (not really, primes work better for me)- don't forget about accessories: tripods, flashes, filters, etc; (you can buy these later, if you feel the need) (IMHO, only memory cards, bags and spare batteries are the must-have, everything else is optional).Now I know that it does not fit my style. I don't need to cover the 16-600mm focal range. I rarely use tele lenses, flashes, tripods, filters ... no need to spend money on that. I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II and then add 85/1.8USM later (which I recommend for portraits).The problem is that you never know before you try it. My current choice is 6D+40/2.8STM (people, close-ups, stitching landscapes, travel) +150/2.8Macro for portraits and stuff outdoors.

+1. Find your style first before buying all that extra stuff. You may find that you use a filter about once a year. Don't buy anything until you find a definite need for it. Try without it. You might find a cheap workaround. For example grad ND - I find lightrooms grad filter way more flexible or take two exposures and blend in photoshop. For ND filter - f/22 does the job (well kind of!). Maybe a CPL is one you will need as thats not possible to replicate digitally. Tripod - my knee, lampost, railing etc. even used someones shoulder once.

When you catagorically cannot go further - then buy it.

I can agree to almost anything except FLASH. I consider flash as one of the most important accessory besides lens and camera. You can use it as a fill-in flash which makes portraits a lot better. It's also a great help for extending a little bit a picture's DR. I can live without a tripod (most of the time) and filters but I consider flash as a must whenever I take pictures except for some situations. You may argue that 6D can take a much higher ISO but when you know how to use your flash properly, your pictures will be a lot better.

I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:- body doesn't matter, half-dead Rebel is fine ; (not for me)- get the best lenses you can afford ...; (best doesn't mean the most expensive)- ... which are 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200L, 100-400L; (not really, primes work better for me)- don't forget about accessories: tripods, flashes, filters, etc; (you can buy these later, if you feel the need) (IMHO, only memory cards, bags and spare batteries are the must-have, everything else is optional).Now I know that it does not fit my style. I don't need to cover the 16-600mm focal range. I rarely use tele lenses, flashes, tripods, filters ... no need to spend money on that. I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II and then add 85/1.8USM later (which I recommend for portraits).The problem is that you never know before you try it. My current choice is 6D+40/2.8STM (people, close-ups, stitching landscapes, travel) +150/2.8Macro for portraits and stuff outdoors.

+1. Find your style first before buying all that extra stuff. You may find that you use a filter about once a year. Don't buy anything until you find a definite need for it. Try without it. You might find a cheap workaround. For example grad ND - I find lightrooms grad filter way more flexible or take two exposures and blend in photoshop. For ND filter - f/22 does the job (well kind of!). Maybe a CPL is one you will need as thats not possible to replicate digitally. Tripod - my knee, lampost, railing etc. even used someones shoulder once.

When you catagorically cannot go further - then buy it.

I can agree to almost anything except FLASH. I consider flash as one of the most important accessory besides lens and camera. You can use it as a fill-in flash which makes portraits a lot better. It's also a great help for extending a little bit a picture's DR. I can live without a tripod (most of the time) and filters but I consider flash as a must whenever I take pictures except for some situations. You may argue that 6D can take a much higher ISO but when you know how to use your flash properly, your pictures will be a lot better.

Well, yes and no. It is a must-have in studio-like conditions or staged scenes (portraits or macro), but for candid or street photography flash can make it look unnatural and be embarrassing for people around you. However, I'm no flash expert, so I may be wrong.I know that good photograph needs good lighting and outdoors there is plenty of it

To beginner: Thank you for posting the link to your photos as it was very helpful to informing my suggestion to you, which is: Get the 6D with the 24-105L lens plus a really good clear filter. For the filter, I'll recommend the B+W XS-Pro Digital 010 UV-Haze MRC nano (77mm size). (I bought this filter for my 24-105 after others on this site recommended it.) Buy these 3 items plus an SD card and you'll be good to go. Check B&H and Adorama and you might find a deal in which a bag is thrown in. I realize this puts you at the maximum of what you want to spend, but I think it is the best investment strategy for the type of photos you take. The filter is not cheap so you may need to wait on getting the 50 mm, but that's ok. It may even be for the best. While using the 24-105 for a while, you can have time to save up some more money and then decide whether you want to get a 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 or 40 mm 2.8 or a telephoto zoom. Other posters to your query have suggested a flash, and you will want/need one at some point. (Most of your photos seem to be taken outdoors so that is why I'm not prioritizing a flash.) Also on the wait until you can save up for them list are CPL and ND filters and a tripod. All of these things are excellent and important to have but I would not trade off buying the 6D to get them right now. (Even the camera bag is optional. I have several, but I have also opted on many occasions to wrap my camera and lens up with two large thick hand towels so I could carry them in a regular backpack or tote.) I bought the T1i/500D several years ago when full frame DSLRs were not as affordable as they are now. I bought the 6D several months ago and love it. It is, in my opinion, truly a camera body you can grow into. That said, your priorities may differ and if you do decide to go with the 600D, then consider the EF 17-40mm lens instead of the EF-S lenses. That way, if/when you move to FF, you'll at least have a lens that is FF compatible.

Hi,how about 600D + 50 1.4 + 17-40 4.0 L? Should be 1400-1500$ and you have a standard zoom and nice fast portrait lens for now. If/when you decide to go FF you would already have a wide-angle zoom and low-light standard prime; throw in a longer prime or zoom and you'd be set and could keep the older crop-body as a backup. All the bestRadioPath

I started with a 650D and quickly wished I had gotten a FF. Which I did. 6D + 24-105. NO regrets about upgrading to the 6D. But I do wish I hadn't started with the crop camera. I'm currently getting ready to sell it. And according to eBay prices I won't lose too much money on it. But it's just an extra step that really was not necessary. If the 6D is within your budget just do it.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

One thing I really like about the 6D is the sound the shutter makes - just so smooth and pressable. In comparison my 5D II just sounds like some old man sneezing and those rebels are just as bad. Clunk Clunk hurts my soul!

One thing I really like about the 6D is the sound the shutter makes - just so smooth and pressable. In comparison my 5D II just sounds like some old man sneezing and those rebels are just as bad. Clunk Clunk hurts my soul!

Sorry, maybe not your highest priority!

+1The shutter sound was never something I cared about, until I tried 6D . Now I love it.